Stripe wrote:What part of "I have looked at the evidence" made you think I had not looked at the evidence?

You're a creationist. That means (1) that you refuse to examine or even acknowledge evidence against your a-priori position. That you must do this as a matter of course is confirmed by the doctrinal obligation proudly displayed by every creationist organization.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."--Answersingenesis.org

"verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific [sic] and historical as well as moral and theological."--Institute for Creation Research

"[this school]....stresses the Word of God as the only source of truth in our world."--Canyon Creek Christian Academy

"...the autographs of the 66 canonical books of the Bible are objectively inspired, infallible and the inerrant Word of God in all of their parts and in all matters of which they speak (history, theology, science, etc.)."--Mark Cadwallader's 'Creation Moments'

"The Bible is the divinely inspired written Word of God. Because it is inspired throughout, it is completely free from error--scientifically, historically, theologically, and morally. Thus it is the absolute authority in all matters of truth, faith, and conduct. The final guide to the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. God's world must always agree with God's Word, because the Creator of the one is the Author of the other. Thus, where physical evidences from the creation may be used to confirm the Bible, these evidences must never be used to correct or interpret the Bible. The written Word must take priority in the event of any apparent conflict."--Mark Ramsey's 'Greater Houston Creation Association'

Revealed truth: That which is revealed in Scripture, whether or not man has scientifically proved it. If it is in the Bible, it is already true without requiring additional proof. ...Fallacy: that which contradicts God's revealed truth, no matter how scientific, how commonly believed, or how apparently workable or logical it may seem--Bob Jones University, Biology Student Text (3rd ed.- 2 vol.)

(2) As a creationist, you're either deceived or a deceiver. There is no 3rd option, as creationism is the least honest perspective one can possibly hold. The only thing you admit to honestly is that you will not honestly admit to anything that is contrary to your a-priori assumed conclusions -which you assert as fact even though you know they are not evidently true.

AronRa wrote:Once Bob is done exposing himself here, I would like to take on his minion, Will Duffy. That boy's wilfull ignorance of every aspect of science is impressive! The accusations he makes trying to conceal or excuse his and his master's foibles are laughable. Remember he's the one who told us to "follow the money" as if that would show a conspiracy on our side rather than his own. The fact that he never even read my first post in these threads tells volumes about his character -especially when he says that I should be embarrassed at my performance therein. The fact that he tried to deflect my 'game' comment back at me reveals a lack of maturity that is sadly typical of those who share his beliefs. The fact that he didn't even know that peer review means other scientists checking for mistakes in your work? That is inexcuseable for someone purporting to hold the position he does for as long as he has. The fact that he actually argued -with scientists- that peer review didn't really mean that -already makes him the poster boy for Dunning-Kruger, even before he claimed to have 'given a class' on a topic he obviously knows nothing at all about. We're talking about someone who's 'world-view' is made of professional grade industrial strength W.R.O.N.G. It is no longer possible to attribute that to either stupidity or dishonesty alone. At this point, it has to be a combination of both. On some level, he has to know that what he pretends to "believe" is not really true, and that he is lying to himself as much as he is to everyone else.

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

I would like an apology from you on behalf of LoR and the atheists and evolutionists on these boards for their arbitrary behavior, giving Aron a pass for his "trust me" claim that the soft-tissue has "been refuted," while for no reason being utterly dismissive toward my references to journal papers.

I will do no such thing, either on my behalf or anybody else. That you are butthurt is entirely your problem, and any imagined slight you choose to get upset by is none of our concern. The reason people are dismissive of your references is because they have read those papers.

(I've only skimmed the other threads, but it seems that you all have treated Will Duffy, "YesYouNeedJesus," in the peanut gallery debate comment thread with this same bad behavior and arbitrary criticism.)

"Arbitrary criticism" in this insatnce I can only assume to mean "calling bullshit when we see it". It's not our problem you or Will seem happy to comment on subjects on which you are woefully lacking. Perhaps a little honesty on your parts would go a way to earning some respect.

It has been completely surreal Australopithicus that your site regulars have largely united behind the extremely absurd claim that "Enyart" et al., "do not even know what fossilisation means," for, allegedly from your evolutionist members, the reports above DO NOT EVEN CLAIM that soft biological tissue has been discovered. No? Well then, why all the controversy for 20 years?

This isn't my site, and your own and Will's inability to read the papers you cite is again, not our problem. If you don't like the conclusions of the papers then try reading them before you use them to try and back up your claims.

Could you apologize Australopithicus also for that extremely bad behavior?

I have nothing to apologise for. The members of this forum have nothing to apologise for. You are not getting an apology. Now, I advise you wipe away any lingering tears and await AronRa's reply. Furthermore, I find it highly fucking ironic that Will (smooth move running to Daddy to complain, by the way Will) complains about us given the sheer amount of intellectual dishonest the man has displayed. Crying censorship for days on end over a paper that hadn't been censored only to demand the thread that we set up about said paper be locked in a display of childishness I'd not witnessed since my days as a 5 year old, without may I add, actually addressing any of the criticisms of the paper.

If either of you expect me to apologise for anything then it will only to be to apologise to anyone viewing the forum for the colossal waste of time and effort you and Will have been.

Anachronous Rex wrote:I have heard it said, and I'm not sure if it is true, that (in particular) male children tend to fetishize based on early sexual exposure. For some reason fetishes are more common in males than in females, and also tend to be more concrete: establishing themselves before adulthood and usually persisting over their entire life.